logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.12.24 2019누55516
관리처분계획 총회결의무효확인
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is an agenda item No. 5 at the special meeting of December 26, 2017.

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 31, No. 10, No. 32, No. 7). Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The main point of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the following defects are illegal.

Therefore, the management and disposal plan of this case should be fully revoked.

At least, among them, the part concerning the balanced allocation of 25:46 square meters to the members of 42:0 square meters should be revoked. According to the management and disposal plan of this case, the Defendant: (a) provided two houses within the scope of the value of the previous assets if the value of the newly built apartment house by the members of the association of this case exceeds the value of the previous apartment house; (b) according to such plan, the members who own the existing 42 square apartment house (hereinafter “42-type members”) are supplied with two houses (hereinafter “254 square meters”) of 25:5 square meters (hereinafter “135 square meters”) and 54 square meters (hereinafter “254 square meters”). Nevertheless, at the time of notification of the application for parcelling-out, the Defendant indicated the 42-type members of 42:54 square meters in the application for parcelling-out as 254 square meters in the case of the members of the association; and (c) rejected the application for parcelling-out among the members of 4225 square and 224 square members.

Other partners, including those, have caused imbalances in the allocation of rights.

Ultimately, the management and disposal plan of this case, which was established based on the result of unfair application for parcelling-out, is unlawful against equity.

As above, the defendant is not in compliance with the application period.

arrow